Download this publication - PULP

102
Chinhamo v Zimbabwe
(2007) AHRLR 96 (ACHPR 2007)
be unduly prolonged he/she must submit the complaint to the
Commission immediately. According to the state, although the
Charter does not specify what constitutes a reasonable time, the
Commission should get inspiration from the other jurisdictions,
including the Inter-American Commission which has fixed six months
as reasonable time, adding that even the draft protocol merging the
African Court of Justice and the African Court on Human and Peoples’
Rights provides for a six months period.
37. The state concludes its submissions by noting that ‘no cogent
reasons have been given for the failure to pursue local remedies or
remedies before the Commission within a reasonable time’ and as
such the communication should be declared inadmissible.
The law on admissibility
Competence of the African Commission
38. In the present communication, the respondent state raises a
preliminary question regarding the competence of the African
Commission to deal with this communication. The state avers that:
'basically the facts and issues in dispute do not fall within the
rationae materiae and rationae personae of the jurisdiction of the
Commission'. This statement questions the competence of the African
Commission to deal with this communication. The Commission will
thus first deals with the preliminary issue of its competence raised by
the respondent state.
39. Black’s Law Dictionary defines rationae materae as ‘by reason
of the matter involved; in consequence of, or from the nature of, the
subject-matter’. While rationae personae is defined as ‘by reason of
the person concerned; from the character of the person’.
40. Given the nature of the allegations contained in the
communication, notably, allegations of violation of personal integrity
or security, intimidation and torture, the Commission is of the view
that the communication raises material elements which may
constitute human rights violations, and as such it has competence
rationae materiae to entertain the matter, because the
communication alleges violations to human rights guaranteed and
protected in the Charter. With regards to the Commission’s
competence rationae personae, the Communication indicates the
name of the author, an individual, whose rights under the African
Charter, the respondent state is committed to respecting and
protecting. With regard to the state, the Commission notes that
Zimbabwe, the respondent state in this case, has been a state party
to the African Charter since 1986. Therefore, both the complainant
and the respondent state have locus standi before the Commission,
and the Commission thus has competence rationae personae to
examine the Communication before it.
African Human Rights Law Reports